Wolverine Plan Discussion

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 29th, 2005, 2:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 28 2005, 07:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In other words, to repeat a previous recommendation, I suggest at least one 60’ <i>continuous</i> endurance session per week. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike:<br /><br />Just to clarify ... this could be a 60'+ L3 <u><b>or </b></u> L4 workout?<br /><br />I'm doing 3 to 4 continuous (as recommended) L4s at 60' each week, but maybe only one L3, and that would be less than 60', as it's now only 12K or so.<br /><br />Thanks -- Mark

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » December 29th, 2005, 5:06 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 28 2005, 07:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In other words, to repeat a previous recommendation, I suggest at least one 60’ <i>continuous</i> endurance session per week. </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 29 2005, 02:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Just to clarify ... this could be a 60'+ L3 <u><b>or </b></u> L4 workout? </td></tr></table><br />Mark –<br /><br />I think L3 is the better format to maximize the benefits of a 60’-plus continuous session. So a goal for you might be to eventually extend your 12K to 15-16K. That doesn’t have to be your highest priority right now given the amount of L4 work you do, but maybe next year. Another recommendation I’ve made is that people keep their overall endurance volume at a ratio of roughly two L4 meters for every L3 meter. The actual L4 & L3 sessions might be formatted any number of ways and the actual number of workouts might vary from a couple longer sessions to several shorter ones, and be affected by a person’s total training volume (some people more, some less) and the schedule someone has to maintain (e.g., someone might not have a block of time suitable for longer workouts). So my comment was geared towards someone who isn’t training with a lot of volume but is trying to keep the overall 2:1 L4:L3 ratio. They might not have time to build their L3 row up to 60’ (which would be better overall), so hopefully they will at least have a Level 4 workout that reaches 60’. Hope that answers your question.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 29th, 2005, 5:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 29 2005, 05:06 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Dec 28 2005, 07:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In other words, to repeat a previous recommendation, I suggest at least one 60’ <i>continuous</i> endurance session per week. </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 29 2005, 02:30 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Just to clarify ... this could be a 60'+ L3 <u><b>or </b></u> L4 workout? </td></tr></table><br />Mark –<br /><br />I think L3 is the better format to maximize the benefits of a 60’-plus continuous session. So a goal for you might be to eventually extend your 12K to 15-16K. That doesn’t have to be your highest priority right now given the amount of L4 work you do, but maybe next year. Another recommendation I’ve made is that people keep their overall endurance volume at a ratio of roughly two L4 meters for every L3 meter. The actual L4 & L3 sessions might be formatted any number of ways and the actual number of workouts might vary from a couple longer sessions to several shorter ones, and be affected by a person’s total training volume (some people more, some less) and the schedule someone has to maintain (e.g., someone might not have a block of time suitable for longer workouts). So my comment was geared towards someone who isn’t training with a lot of volume but is trying to keep the overall 2:1 L4:L3 ratio. They might not have time to build their L3 row up to 60’ (which would be better overall), so hopefully they will at least have a Level 4 workout that reaches 60’. Hope that answers your question.<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes, it does, thanks Mike. The L3s are the hardest for me mentally, even with all the little tricks you and others have suggested, or the ones I've dreamed up myself. I do need more of them, and longer, and faster, just need to get my head wrapped around 'em to get 'em done!<br /><br />

[old] tennstrike · Post by **[old] tennstrike** » December 30th, 2005, 2:06 pm

Mark:<br /><br />Been out west for the last week and just got finished catching up on the thread. Sorry your 4 x 1K turned out as it did. Baby steps, baby steps. I agree with all the good advice your post solicited, however. Just one bad workout. Add 1.5 to 2 seconds and put it back into the rotation and move forward. <br /><br />Thought I'd share my experiences with five workouts at an altititude of just under 6,000 feet. The effect on training was much more than I would have thought. My first day I started to do my 2K workout at the same target as home of 1:58 and just died after 750 meters or so. I ended up averaging 2:02 for my 2K workout. I really did not have much problem with my next day L4, but it is only a 40' 176 180 176 180. The L3 turned out around + 6 from my normal pace and then a "reasonable" L4. It seemed to me that my endurance was more affected than my strength. (Funny, this is the reverse of a post I read earlier on this thread.) Anyway with L1 next up in the rotation, I finally made an adjustment and started at 1:55 for the first 500 meter piece rather than the 1:51 or so I would have for a workout average of 1:49.5 I had gotten to with the 500's. What a difference when I finally simply adjusted my goals. I had negative splits until finishing at 1:48.4. Not great by "home" standards but amazing based on my week at 6K feet.<br /><br />Anyway, my experience at altititude, in my shape (which is now around 60,000 meters per week for the last 4-5 weeks) is that strength was somewhat affected but not nearly as much as endurance, which was severely affected.<br /><br />I'm just hoping that everything will be "back to normal" when I get home.<br /><br />Jeff

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 30th, 2005, 2:18 pm

Jeff:<br /><br />Interesting post. I'm going on a ski trip the first week in February to Colorado. I think we're somewhere between 7K and 8K feet where we're staying. I'm trying to find a C2 somewhere nearby, and have been a bit anxious about how to set some target paces for the workouts at altitude, since I've never done any training at altitude. I guess it will require some trial and error to see what works. Your post can help me guage where to start, at least. <br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />-- Mark

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 30th, 2005, 5:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 29 2005, 01:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yes, it does, thanks Mike. The L3s are the hardest for me mentally, even with all the little tricks you and others have suggested, or the ones I've dreamed up myself. I do need more of them, and longer, and faster, just need to get my head wrapped around 'em to get 'em done!<br /><br /> [right] </td></tr></table><br />Thanks for sharing these wonderful tidbits! <br />

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » December 30th, 2005, 5:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 30 2005, 05:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Dec 29 2005, 01:10 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Yes, it does, thanks Mike. The L3s are the hardest for me mentally, even with all the little tricks you and others have suggested, or the ones I've dreamed up myself. I do need more of them, and longer, and faster, just need to get my head wrapped around 'em to get 'em done!<br /><br /> [right] </td></tr></table><br />Thanks for sharing these wonderful tidbits! <br /> </td></tr></table><br />You're most welcome John!

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 2nd, 2006, 3:40 pm

Back on track ... <b>and a question about erg training in the cold </b>...<br /><br />Back home from a family holiday between Christmas and the New Year. Did a LEVEL 2 workout, 5 x 1,500M, today and knocked .98 seconds off my prior best average pace. Much better than what appeared to be a dismal and/or mis-paced 4 x 1,000 LEVEL 1 last week. Altitude was not an issue at either location. <br /><br />QUESTION: Today's workout was not that tough, and I wonder if rowing in a heated basement is the answer. For the past week or so, I've been rowing in an unheated garage -- temperatures anywhere from 25 to 40 degrees F (-4 to +5 degrees C). My attempt at a fast 4 x 1,000 last week failed badly. Today, in the heated room (yet still cool -- maybe 58-60 degrees F, about 15 degrees C), I felt much better. I know I run slower in the cold, but I chalk much of that up to the extra clothing, its weight, and its restrictions. <br /><br />I'd be interested in how others row in cold vs. cool (or warm). How does it impact your speed and endurance?

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » January 2nd, 2006, 3:57 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 2 2006, 07:40 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'd be interested in how others row in cold vs. cool (or warm). How does it impact your speed and endurance? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How much warm-up do you do? For a 2K piece I have a 20 minute (~5K) warm-up routine. <br /><br /><a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8738' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8738</a> discusses warm-up.<br /><br />There's some details of a specific warm-up in <a href='http://www.powerbreathe.com/pdf/research-rowing.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www.powerbreathe.com/pdf/researc ... pdf</a><br />[See page 2, column 2 - Rowing warm-up (RWU).]

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » January 3rd, 2006, 4:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Jan 2 2006, 03:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>How much warm-up do you do? For a 2K piece I have a 20 minute (~5K) warm-up routine. </td></tr></table><br />Personally, I think warming up is a waste of time. Which is why I’ve never talked about it. Certainly not on this thread. Especially not on Page 17.<br /><br />Which, BTW, is a separate issue from the effects of ambient temperature. Personally, I do a better on long, continuous rows in a cooler environment (something like 48-58 deg F is probably optimal, though anything above freezing is not unprecedented). Getting just the right clothing and using a CBreeze or not depending on exact temp & humidity allows the exercise-generated heat to dissipate optimally. For race-pace work, a little warmer is better, though not <i>too</i> warm – 60-65 deg F is probably optimal. Cold air is tough on my airways under those conditions, and a little extra warmth seems to be good for maximizing muscle power output. Although a lot of internal heat is generated, there is time to cool down between intervals. The numbers I mention are just guesstimates, but the relative cooler for distance, warmer for sprints relationship works for me. During the dog days of July & August everything goes to h3ll – too much heat is counter-productive for any training.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br /><br />

[old] tomhz · Post by **[old] tomhz** » January 3rd, 2006, 6:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jan 3 2006, 08:58 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Citroen @ Jan 2 2006, 03:57 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>How much warm-up do you do? For a 2K piece I have a 20 minute (~5K) warm-up routine. </td></tr></table><br />Personally, I think warming up is a waste of time. Which is why I’ve never talked about it. Certainly not on this thread. Especially not on Page 17.<br /><br />Which, BTW, is a separate issue from the effects of ambient temperature. Personally, I do a better on long, continuous rows in a cooler environment (something like 48-58 deg F is probably optimal, though anything above freezing is not unprecedented). Getting just the right clothing and using a CBreeze or not depending on exact temp & humidity allows the exercise-generated heat to dissipate optimally. For race-pace work, a little warmer is better, though not <i>too</i> warm – 60-65 deg F is probably optimal. Cold air is tough on my airways under those conditions, and a little extra warmth seems to be good for maximizing muscle power output. Although a lot of internal heat is generated, there is time to cool down between intervals. The numbers I mention are just guesstimates, but the relative cooler for distance, warmer for sprints relationship works for me. During the dog days of July & August everything goes to h3ll – too much heat is counter-productive for any training.<br /><br />Mike Caviston <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Who hijacked this post??<br /><br />Tom

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » January 3rd, 2006, 6:50 pm

Not sure what you mean Tom. Please explain.

[old] nharrigan · Post by **[old] nharrigan** » January 3rd, 2006, 7:31 pm

Mike and Others,<br /><br />I was curious if anyone had used a Wolverine-type plan for cycling. <br />I've been following the WP to train for the Crash-Bs and it's been working great. I feel I have a good shot to beat my PB from college. (I'm just glad they shortened the races to 2k).<br />After the Crash-Bs, I'm going back to amateur bike racing. I thought the WP training philosophy might translate well on the bike. L1 could be a 10 mile time trials, L2 as hill repeats, etc. I like the way you can observe your progress from week to week. I have used the periodization methods for the past few years and thought I'd look at other some ideas. <br /><br />Any links, info or thoughts will be appreciated.<br /><br />Back to the fun- 8x500's today.<br /><br />Thanks,<br /><br />Neil<br /><br /><br />

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 3rd, 2006, 8:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 3 2006, 02:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Not sure what you mean Tom. Please explain. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he means that "Mikes" post doesn't sound much like Mike. I'm pretty certain that I have read a fair bit regarding the importance of a good warm-up coming from Mike, and the change to "a warm-up is a waste of time" is quite dramatic.<br /><br />I'm not sure what's worse, anonymous provocateurs, or identity hi-jacking, but I'm pretty sure one is a crime.

[old] seat5 · Post by **[old] seat5** » January 3rd, 2006, 8:40 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jan 4 2006, 12:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(mpukita @ Jan 3 2006, 02:50 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Not sure what you mean Tom. Please explain. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think he means that "Mikes" post doesn't sound much like Mike. I'm pretty certain that I have read a fair bit regarding the importance of a good warm-up coming from Mike, and the change to "a warm-up is a waste of time" is quite dramatic.<br /><br />I'm not sure what's worse, anonymous provocateurs, or identity hi-jacking, but I'm pretty sure one is a crime. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Since he says he especially didn't talk about it on page 17, I am assuming there is a long post about warming up by Mike on that page. I clearly remember his addressing it somewhere in this thread. I think this post is Mike being sarcastic, and I think it's funny!

Concept2 Forum

Wolverine Plan Discussion

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training